Whitman

In opposition to his predecessors, Walt Whitman offered his audience a very unique outlook on the War. Whitman was a poet over everything else and I feel that this is evident in his writing; however, I also believe Mark Neely’s claim that Whitman viewed the war solely as an advance of the Union cause. Whitman hardly speaks of slavery as an institution in his poetry so it is often left to question just how he does feel about it. Although he was not necessarily opposed to slavery itself, the Fugitive Slave Act did infuriate him. However, it was not because of what it stated but rather how it was to be regulated. He felt that something of that manner should not be left to the states, but rather the nation as a whole. Whitman believed that if such a task were placed as the responsibility of the states then it would not receive equal enforcement. Since he was never overly vocal with his thoughts on slavery, it is left for assumption that Whitman was not excessively opposed to it. With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that he didn’t perceive the Civil War as a “war of liberation” but rather a “war for the Union.” The Emancipation Proclamation was also not favored or largely discussed in Whitman’s work and I accredit this lack of discussion to the document’s relation to Northern propaganda. The Emancipation only affected slaves in states that had not remained loyal to the Union and it was also seen as a tool to hopefully enhance the Union cause in the eyes of European nations. In accordance with Neely, I was also under the impression that Whitman was not too fond of Lincoln. Lincoln made many ‘exceptions’ to the Emancipation and he was more than willing to compromise with the states. I observe Whitman to be someone who approves of a strong, steadfast character; thus, I don’t see him highly favoring Mr. Lincoln. Neely even goes as far as to say that Whitman considered him a “mystical nationalist.” This is complementary to my theory that Whitman saw Lincoln as trying to save something that didn’t need saving.
Although they shared similar subjects of their works, Timrod, Horton, and Whitman all offered very differing opinions of slavery, the war, nationalism, etc. Timrod’s works gives his readers a hint of southern nostalgia as he speaks of cotton and all of the other great aspects of the South. In my opinion, he seems to lack a certain passion possessed by the other two; at least a passion for the war. His concentration seems to be more or less focused on the South and all of the beauties he foresees getting destroyed. Horton, on the other hand, makes up for the passion that Timrod seemed to lack. An African American himself, Horton portrayed immense pain, turmoil, and brutality through his work; emotions that often evoked a variety of emotions in the reader. I could almost feel the hurt flow from his fingertips to the page and then back to me as a result of him composing with such elegance and fervor. Whitman possesses characteristics of both of his fellow poets; however, he also highly contradicts each of his counterparts as well. While he presents Timrod’s devotion to the south, he most certainly writes with Horton’s passion. I believe this is probably why Whitman is honestly one of my favorite poets, not only of his era, but of all time.
Furthermore, Whitman’s “Beat! Beat! Drums!” epitomizes his stance on the war. I see the drum-beating representing the war, or the idea of the war, itself. It tells how it spreads everywhere, and how no one is immune to its affects. The bridegroom, the farmer, the city traffic, the sleeping people, the talking people, the singers, the lawyers, and everyone from every occupation and every background is affected by this “noise.” “Burst like a ruthless force,” says Whitman in detailing the sheer strength of the sound of the drums, or what the reader could assume was the vigor of the war. He continues to use terms such as “no happiness,” “so fierce,” “mind not the timid,” to truly enlighten his audience on the plights associated with this war that he has undoubtedly deemed as unnecessary. Whitman uses this selection to share his beliefs on the lack of a proper motif for the war and how gruesome it could be. He also leads the reader to question “for what?” in regard to why such atrocities occurred.